Poll: Is Music Art?

[Disaster Button]

I know a lot of pop music lately isn't considered art mainly because of the general lyrics that consist of "BADADAPOKERFAAAACCEEABABOOMPOOWLOOVEEBANDERSNATCHFSAAAATCCCH"

Which I think is quite sad because when you look at music from the past (Beatles, Queen to name obvious examples) some of their songs were really artistic and meant something. Now it is a lot easier to be considered artistic when bands like that right their own music, play their own instruments, etc.

But why has Music of late (generally) not on par with those bands. Why does no one say: "That [band name] are great, like The Beatles, y'know?"

But about it being considered art, I find it difficult to name a more than a handful of examples of songs that actually count as "Art" and even then those songs are limited to my personal taste.

So what do you guys all think? Is Music Art? Is Music as big or as memorable as it (arguably) used to be? And is the classification of art open to the interpretation of the individual?

Would also be nice if you could all post some examples of Music you count as Art too.

First of all, tell everyone what art really is.

Give us the only true and proper definition of what art is, and we can begin discussing the subject at hand...

I don't believe their is One True Deffinition, I believe Art is open to interpretation, whether that be from an individual or from the mass. But I could never quantify all of art in one deffinition. It's sorta the point of the post to get everyone's own deffinition

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Yeah, it's art, but not art as we appreciate it. I guess that eventually people will look back on the crap of today and say "why couldn't our material be more like that?"

 

[Abominus]

Yeah, it's art, but not art as we appreciate it. I guess that eventually people will look back on the crap of today and say "why couldn't our material be more like that?"

Nostalgia, heroin for old people

 

[Fightgarr]

I'm extremely tired of people's arrogance that they think they are able to designate what it art and what is not. People on these boards consistently judge modern and post-modern visual and performing art, trying to justify not calling it art. What makes anyone think they know enough about post-modernism[footnote]Which people who've studied for over a decade still can't come up a definition for.[/footnote] to be able to judge it properly? What the hell makes it alright to say that just because you don't like modern music makes in not art? People still wrote the song. People still perform the songs. It is still under the designation of music, which is and always has been a performing art. Look, I'm not saying I know any better than you who think you can judge it. But I at least know that thinking you can judge what is and isn't art is a ludicrous notion.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I don't believe their is One True Deffinition, I believe Art is open to interpretation, whether that be from an individual or from the mass. But I could never quantify all of art in one deffinition. It's sorta the point of the post to get everyone's own deffinition

Exactly! Please, help yourself to a cookie. : )

Now with this profound understanding in mind, you do realize the somewhat paradoxical nature of saying that the crap Lady GaGa churns out isn't "art"?

Now im no fan of hers, in fact she's sort of the zenith of bland, boring and easily digested pop music crap... But because of the very dual nature of art, I can't disprove the utter crap she does as not being art.

I find her art to be stinky and bad, and that mankind would be better of without it... But ultimately, it's still art. Regardless of how bad, bland and uninspiring I find it to be.

The same goes for everyone else. We might think one piece of art really suck, but it's still art. No matter how you look at it.

It's not that im trying to put an end to your thread or anything, I just find the topic to be a bit difficult to really discuss, without it all derailing into a simple list-topic, where people write what they think is good and what they think is crap...

 

[Rensenhito]

Yes, of course music is art. Even extremely BAD music. It's just extremely BAD art. Remember back in Kindergarten, when everyone's definition of "art" seemed to be "macaroni glued on a bit of cardstock and drenched in every color of RoseArt marker?" Yeah, that's basically Miley Cyrus in adhesive rainbow pasta form.

 

[GonzoGamer]

All music is art.
Weather it should be defined as low art or high art is up to the critics.

 

[Disaster Button]

I don't believe their is One True Deffinition, I believe Art is open to interpretation, whether that be from an individual or from the mass. But I could never quantify all of art in one deffinition. It's sorta the point of the post to get everyone's own deffinition

Exactly! Please, help yourself to a cookie. : )

Now with this profound understanding in mind, you do realize the somewhat paradoxical nature of saying that the crap Lady GaGa churns out isn't "art"?

Now im no fan of hers, in fact she's sort of the zenith of bland, boring and easily digested pop music crap... But because of the very dual nature of art, I can't disprove the utter crap she does as not being art.

I find her art to be stinky and bad, and that mankind would be better of without it... But ultimately, it's still art. Regardless of how bad, bland and uninspiring I find it to be.

The same goes for everyone else. We might think one piece of art really suck, but it's still art. No matter how you look at it.

It's not that im trying to put an end to your thread or anything, I just find the topic to be a bit difficult to really discuss, without it all derailing into a simple list-topic, where people write what they think is good and what they think is crap...

Mmm cookie.

Anyway I do think you're right that it's hard to discuss. It really stemmed from an arguement I had the other day about this topic. Whereas I tihnk most music is art, whether I like it or not, I know some people who would say that because they don't like it isn't art. Which is actually a statement I've heard a lot in regards to paintings and music.

But to be fair. I actually think Lady Gaga is quite artistic. An opinion mostly based on her song "Paparazzi", the lyrics are really good and exist as a multiple purpose meaning which are actually pretty deep in a lot of ways. But when I compare that to Poker Face I can say that I believe Paparazzi is more artistic which is what I was trying to discuss, which you picked up on.

That art is very open to personal interpretation up to the point where one person could go far as to call something "not art" if they don't like it, I don't feel that way (mostly) but I was trying to address both points of view without making it a bias OP.

 

[Disaster Button]

I'm extremely tired of people's arrogance that they think they are able to designate what it art and what is not. People on these boards consistently judge modern and post-modern visual and performing art, trying to justify not calling it art. What makes anyone think they know enough about post-modernism[footnote]Which people who've studied for over a decade still can't come up a definition for.[/footnote] to be able to judge it properly? What the hell makes it alright to say that just because you don't like modern music makes in not art? People still wrote the song. People still perform the songs. It is still under the designation of music, which is and always has been a performing art. Look, I'm not saying I know any better than you who think you can judge it. But I at least know that thinking you can judge what is and isn't art is a ludicrous notion.

Excuse me? Look I didn't mean to step on your toes but I created a post containing both points of view, that some people can say all music is "art" and some people think only some music is "art". I'm not trying to say the 60s or 80s were more artistic than modern music. I was trying (dunno if I succeeded) to say that some people can say a piece of music or a painting is not "art" because they don't like it. Not because they believe everything in that medium isn't art but only pieces they personally find artistic.

And when I said that some pop music isn't art I wasn't just referring to another point of view that people have said in regards to this but I was also referring to when people sing a song premade for them and created using heavy voice correction, etc. Not saying music isn't art at all.

Edit: I also didn't say I disliked modern music, I asked why no one treats bands now the same way they treat the Beatles. I love modern music. And I believe the importance of art is relative to the individual not someone qualified to designate it as someone might relate to a piece of art differently to another maybe through personal experience or some other reason. After all a lot of art (if not all) is created through self expression and experiences.

 

[kellenheller]

I believe alot of music is art, however, bubblegum pop such as Britney Spears and Black Eyed Peas are not art. The only talent they have is duping a bunch of idiots to buy their shit.

 

[NeutralDrow]

All music is art. Whether it's good art is open to interpretation.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Yes it's an art form its a skill that takes time to learn, aswell as a creative form of expression stop trying to give words new definitions it just breeds more shit strawman arguments and pretention. If its GOOD art on the other hand is where you can debate.

 

[fedpayne]

Of course music is art. All music is art. I just drew this:

Just because it isn't as good as this:

Doesn't make it not art. It's a spectrum, and they are near opposing ends but still are on the spectrum. The same applies to music.

Also, interesting that you cite Queen. They were good, but they were just a pop band as well. What of their songs meant more than any pop stuff that's around today?

And music doesn't have to have insightful lyrics to be art. Beethoven? Mozart?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

That art is very open to personal interpretation up to the point where one person could go far as to call something "not art" if they don't like it, I don't feel that way (mostly) but I was trying to address both points of view without making it a bias OP.

Okay. Well that's an admirable goal, but quite frankly it' easier to get your point across if you and everyone else accept that we are all biased creatures by default, don't you agree?

Still, would be kinda interesting discussing the artistic merits of any given art or particular artist (musical or not).

It's like with that other thread recently about the "rape tunnel". Now no one can really claim that the rape tunnel isn't art, but you can certainly question and discuss the motivations behind the rape tunnel and compare just how advanced and sophisticated those motivations are.

To me, the rape tunnel is just an art in provocation and nothing more, and if the artist himself would try to ascribe something else to it, then I probably would't believe him.

But this thread was about music, so I'll stick with music, and why not Lady Gaga herself since I opened up that can of worms.

Now I have been checking up on some information about where she draws her inspiration from when singing some of her songs, and one thing she has told the media is that one source of inspiration of hers is:... "Fashion". (clothing fashion)

Im not going to claim to be unbiased here, but I consider fashion to be one of the most impersonal sources of inspiration ever. We have countless musical artists out there who really pour their heart and soul out in their lyrics and music, they sing about loved ones, about their feelings, about best friends who have died and the emptiness that they left behind etc. etc.

And this hack sings about the ridiculous clothes she likes to wear on a friday night out.

But then again, maybe clothing is something very personal and important to her and that's why it sparks her imagination, but that will bite her in the butt as well, because if you consider clothes to be so important and personal then you have to be a really bland and uninteresting person in my opinion, so there's really not much she could do to try selling her "musical art" to me.


Now in an effort to keep this from becoming a smug and arrogant rant, I feel that perhaps I should adress another issue with music in general. I sort of "praised" the musical artists out there who really pour their heart and soul into their music, but we all have to admit, aren't songs about love, loss, feelings etc. etc. a bit... "stereotypical"?

I mean, whenever I hear some new "star" or "starlett" being interviewed about this latest song of theirs, and they say: "Well... It's a lovesong". I tend to go:

"Gee, wow! Now that's quite original of you. Because we have this really big shortage on lovesongs in the world..."

I know, im a bit paradoxical person myself, but then again, who isn't?

Perhaps music have already passed it's critical mass. Perhaps all the relevant topics have already been adressed with music. Perhaps it is impossible to avoid being either stereotypical or boring/impersonal.

Perhaps that's why I can really get into ambient music without lyrics, because it doesn't have to be about a specific topic or category, it can just speak to you anyway, without any real communication...

 

[Saika]

In regards to music, I personally (in opinion ONLY, I am not saying this is the right way to go) categorize music in one of four groups: Fun, Artistic, Not For Me, and Shit. I am not going to name bands or artists that I would put into the "Shit" category, as I do not wish to be the bringer of the inevitable flame war where people begin claiming others have no taste in music, and that they need to grow up or are idiotic for liking a certain type of music. Finally, another disclaimer is that I do indeed listen to most sorts of music, primarily metal, rock, and foreign music, though I do listen to pop, some hip-hop, techno, trance, and a little bit of country once in a while in small doses. That said, here are my thoughts:

"Fun" music: I see this as catchy music that can be listened to just to relax or when you need to destress and unwind and just hear something in the background. I tend to listen to this category somewhat often, but I do not see depth outside of this category being used as anything other than throwaway entertainment. It is an art to be able to make music that fits here, but I do not consider this SIGNIFICANT art. Examples of this: Black Eyed Peas, P!nk, half of Lady Gaga's work, old Disturbed, Psycho le Cemu, Rob Zombie, Lordi, Static-X, most video game soundtracks.

"Artistic" music: I view this as music that has had obvious effort expended by the artist in making the music, usually with personal experience and values inserted into the music. I would also call this "contemporary" music, in that it often involves artists turning a new leaf and trying their hand at something they have never done before. However, there are many bands that put out music I consider artistic that retain a similar sound throughout their career. If I can tell that thought went into the lyrics and pacing/overall layout of the song, or that the band/artist put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into making the music, I consider it significant art. I listen to this category quite a bit, and when I do, I usually focus solely on the music and aim to appreciate it. Bands under this category are also usually made up of people who I respect, with visions and attitudes that they express in music and interviews. Of the bands listed, I find almost all of the artists/bands interesting as people and respect their work, and as such, they are in a way idols to me. Examples: Dir en grey (ESPECIALLY the entire Uroboros album), Mastodon, Russian Circles, the other half of Lady Gaga's work, old In Flames (up to and including Clayman)

"Not For Me" music: Music that I can appreciate as artistic, but I personally just do not understand it. Examples: Isis, can't think of any others at the moment.

"Shit" Music: LOL RAP LOL. But seriously, shit can come from any genre, and no, I do not have an actual bias against rap itself. This is music that I cannot see having any value, artistic or not, and will lead me to seriously question the intelligence of its fans. I'm not one to totally shut myself off to someone based on something like musical taste, but liking artists I would put under this category will earn you at least a raised eyebrow from me.

That being said, I consider almost all music art, and feel that music is a very personal thing. To each his own, and if you appreciate the music on a level beyond "I like to have this in the background while I study/drive/whatever", then to you it should be considered significant art.

As an ending note, I am a 20 year old straight male college student, and am a huge supporter of Lady Gaga. If you feel the need to bash her, that is your right and I will not stop you or say anything more about it. However, I suggest we all keep an open mind and not just jump on someone as an idiot or as having no taste for a few musical preferences. Music can mean something different to each person, and I respect her as both a person and an artist. Remember, the common stereotype isn't always right. People are people, and much more than the type of sound they like hearing. Cheers, and I hope this remains a well-reasoned discussion instead of turning into a flame war.

 

[AllHailTheAltmer]

Yes. A million times yes.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that music sucks right now because the music in the charts is mostly terrible. You have to dig a little deeper to find the stuff you like, but I'd say some of the most talented bands ever are from this generation of musicians. I'm not just talking about indie, because that's been rising in popularity for years.

Before you get disillutioned by all modern music, go listen to Sigur Ros. Go listen to Bjork, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, The Mars Volta, and if you like the louder stuff, go listen to Deftones, Thrice and Circa Survive.

 

[Gebi10000]

if this isn't art, then what is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEb4TG10jW8

 

[Klepa]

Of course music is art. All music is art. I just drew this:

Spoiler

Just because it isn't as good as this:

Spoiler

Doesn't make it not art. It's a spectrum, and they are near opposing ends but still are on the spectrum. The same applies to music.

Also, interesting that you cite Queen. They were good, but they were just a pop band as well. What of their songs meant more than any pop stuff that's around today?

And music doesn't have to have insightful lyrics to be art. Beethoven? Mozart?

I think this dude has it right. Many people think art has something to do with quality.
Just like how Saabs are cars, Halo is a game, haggis is food, and Heineken is beer, the Top 40 chart is art. It doesn't matter how much of a stinking pile of poop it may be, it's still art. I think a lot of people has put the term "art" on a pedestal, thinking that for something to be "art", it has to be somehow good.

 

[fedpayne]

Of course music is art. All music is art. I just drew this:

Spoiler

Just because it isn't as good as this:

Spoiler

Doesn't make it not art. It's a spectrum, and they are near opposing ends but still are on the spectrum. The same applies to music.

Also, interesting that you cite Queen. They were good, but they were just a pop band as well. What of their songs meant more than any pop stuff that's around today?

And music doesn't have to have insightful lyrics to be art. Beethoven? Mozart?

I think this dude has it right. Many people think art has something to do with quality.
Just like how Saabs are cars, Halo is a game, haggis is food, and Heineken is beer, the Top 40 chart is art. It doesn't matter how much of a stinking pile of poop it may be, it's still art. I think a lot of people has put the term "art" on a pedestal, thinking that for something to be "art", it has to be somehow good.

Thankyou!

Although, not all modern music is shite.